The bill also will not get even close to securing the border. There are no “triggers” that would allow a slowdown in the legalization and citizenship process for illegals if certain border security measures aren’t taken. It’s an open invitation for DHS to drag its feet on implementing the will of Congress.

But immigration reform is probably not the issue that will split the Republican Party. As Allah points out, we all have “red lines” that we won’t cross:

We all have our “red line” issues, as Drew says. Offhand, I can’t think of a single person I know privately or on Twitter who supports (or is indifferent to) the Gang of Eight bill and who also traditionally has treated border security as a “red line.” Everyone wants better border security and everybody thinks it’s important for immigrants to follow the rule of law, but when push comes to shove, some people are okay with bending on this in the name of other political goals and others are not. If you believe the polls about background checks and gun control, we might very well win a few extra votes by caving on that too. Want to do that? We might also win some votes by declaring our support for abortion in the first trimester. Okay to do that? We all have our “red lines.”

Indeed we do, but there is not much of a threat to tear the party apart if the House GOP caves on the Senate bill and offers some kind of legalization for those who broke the law. If it was a real threat, I doubt whether Republicans in the House would take it up.

A more likely outcome would be a turning inward by GOP activists and concentrating on electing conservatives at the local level. It is also likely to turn some voters off to the point of apathy.

This has been happening to a smaller extent since the Bush years and could accelerate if immigration reform is passed. It wouldn’t be the sudden rending of a political party, but rather a slow, steady dissolution as supporters fall away.

One can only hope that the president makes good on his threat to veto any bill without a path to citizenship. That’s reform opponents’ Alamo, and you should expect the House GOP to stay united on that.

It might be cool, and fun to think abut, but the history of third parties in this country in the last century or so is absolutely clear and consistent: all they do is elect Democrats. From Teddy Roosevelt through Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace, through George Wallace, and Ross Perot, the result was all the same. The only possible exception might be Ralph Nader in one or two of his runs.'

The solution is to capture the party, as Bary Goldwater and Ronald Reagan did, and on the other side, George McGovern. Then you can win, if not the first try, then later.

I'm certain that the Rockefellerian wing of the GOP is quite confident that they will have secured the eternal patronage of homosexuals and Formerly-Illegal- Aliens Now-On-Their-Paths-To-Citizenship that they will more than make up for any loss among working-class and middle-income voters.

The sad thing is that I'm being only half-sarcastic...they might have actually convinced themselves that this is the case!

This reminds of nothing so much as the "plight" of the Big 3 "US" automakers, who can't seem to assemble cars in Mexico and Canada to sell at a profit in the USA while Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Hyundai, Kia, BMW and Mercedes-Benz can all seem to manage to assemble cars in the USA and sell them in the USA,(presumably at a profit).

What's the bon-mot about "if you can't figure out who the problem is....?"

The GOP has too much baggage to do the political work that needs to be done to organize and rescue the private sector working men and women of this country.

Wealthy greens and elite earners in the financial industries have aligned with the political parties and the public service unions while enlisting the poor identity groups as pawns and have totally gamed the system. The Democrats have the upper hand now but I guarantee you that the Republicans would do no better except perhaps to take different stand on some social issues here and there.

The private sector, excluding those who have already sold out to big government, needs to be organized into its own party – a party for the rest of us who toil in obscurity at relatively low compensation for value delivered, providing the goods and services that everyone needs to live and enjoy life.

As a thought experiment, imagine if every worker in every company in the private sector, from the janitor to the general manager had the same sweet deal that government and public employees get. i.e lax work rules, can’t be fired, high pay, great benefits, retire in your 50s, full pensions and benefits until you die.

Imagine never having to save a penny throughout your life because you know your pay benefits will continue until the day you die. Instead as a member of the private sector, you are “allowed” to defer taxes on $4000 per year in a futile attempt to retire modestly at 70 let alone match the multi-million pension deals that are now common in the public sector. Imagine that instead of one boss or two you have 13 layers of managers, deputies, and assistant deputies who get paid handsomely to sit around and think about the work that you are doing.

What would a loaf of bread, a gallon of gasoline or a stay at Motel 6 cost under those circumstances? You quickly realize that the only way that politicians, public service unions and their crony capitalist partners can continue to enrich themselves in real terms is because we in the private sector don’t get to operate under such foolish and wasteful principles and don’t get anywhere near the privileges, pay, bonuses and benefits that they have fraudulently arranged for themselves.

We have a blueprint to follow and (if you can stomach the thought) it is the one followed by Progressives. They have prospered by using identity politics, grievance-based politics and playing to the natural tendency of people to resent and envy. Well, I identify with the private sector where I never earned a penny that someone didn't feel I deserved to earn. I have a big grievance against the waste, fraud and special privilege seeking that infects government at all levels. And I sure as h*ll resent having paid so much tax all my life so that the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the IRS Rainbow Outreach Program can retire at age 55 at $200k per year and gold plated benefits.

I am conflicted. It's a terrible bill that will increase the number of Hispanic Democrats by tens of millions. I hope it fails But there may also be a silver lining - it will destroy the entitlement state. Public schools, welfare, social security, and medicare will all break under the pressure of an additional 30 or 40 million people piling on. Once broken, perhaps we'll finally roll back the nanny state.

One third of Italian immigrants returned to Italy because they could not make it in America. Without a welfare state, we too might see repatriation or preferably an increasingly productive American people. Or more likely, another semi-functional banana republic.

Perhaps we will see a real go Galt movement with Reagan Democrats at core.

I have already left the GOP. What we NEED is a Constitutionally Governed Party, whose platform is just what the name implies. But some people have to be willing to give up their dreams of lording over others. For instance same-sex marriage; The Constitution has no provision for deciding who can marry, therefore the states get to decide and the Federal level must stay out of it. Instead of doom and gloom, California, one of the bluest states in America, voted against it! I personally think who someone marries is the least of our concerns and it does not affect me one iota. Not like I have to join them in their union. Folks, liberty is the maximum absence of coercion! Live and let live. If you have a moral objection to it, talk to God since he is the only true judge. They are not hurting you, let it go. And stop dragging down Conservative ideals by waving your 'holier than thou' card around. BTW, I am a card carrying Heterosexual man, I just don't care about lording over others.

You wrote "The Constitution has no provision for deciding who can marry, therefore the states get to decide and the Federal level must stay out of it. " Please consider the case of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). This is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court which invalidated state laws prohibiting interracial marriage. In other words, American citizens under the United States Constitution have certain rights, even certain rights to marriage, that State laws cannot violate (for long).

Under the "Full faith and credit clause", each American State recognizes marriages validly contracted or dissolved in each other American State. Here the Federal Constitution bears directly on marriage law, in so far as marriage is a contract. So, I dare the prediction that this will apply to same sex marriage and divorce soon as it already applies to heterosexual marriage and divorce.

I agree entirely with your more important points: "I personally think who someone marries is the least of our concerns and it does not affect me one iota. Not like I have to join them in their union. Folks, liberty is the maximum absence of coercion! Live and let live."

I think she's right. The ruling classes have become as arrogant and clueless (and shameless as well) as the Media Elite in our country. It might be that the only way to kill of the RINOs is to abandon the GOP.

Gotta laugh at the pathologies on display here, all the GOP drones and haughty brahmins wincing at the peasants and rarely able to refer to Palin by name. 'Working-class' seems to mean anyone disliked by Kristol, Krauthammer or by one or two broken reeds who work for PJ Media. About 75% of the population, in other words.

The penny will drop soon: today's crap-filled system is simply unsustainable.

Sarah Palin is the most naturally gifted politician of our lifetimes, a woman who has walked the walk and sounds like it, a combination of Will Rogers and RR and very much her own woman. Many here will deny it to the end, and will then try to reinvent themselves. Well...Try googling the Vicar of Bray.Then reflect on Swift's mirror.

Palin has has lots of time. Maybe best to run for senator in a flyover state. Then the comparisons with Hillary will begin. You already know who wins there; and Palin's options multiply.

"One can only hope that the president makes good on his threat to veto any bill without a path to citizenship. "

I wouldn't bet on it. My gut tells me that if there are enough other goodies for the illegal aliens, he will sign whatever he can get, as another "signature" piece for his "legacy". It's a typical shell game that he plays to con the Republican marks into falling for his style of compromise.

Frankly, I'm through w/ the GOP. They are a bunch of mindless dolts intent on the suicide of the GOP. Tired of them begging me for their vote every 4 yrs. & then laying down to the dems. Their leadership is a joke & is a huge part of the problem. Besides, when the amnesty bill passes, this all will become a moot point. The GOP will be DOA permanently. Hillary will easily win for our next prez & our party will just limp along becoming more liberal & the demo light party. I'm outta here!

>>"Every few years, illegal immigration will come up as an issue again and we’ll be forced to go through the same rigamarole we’re going through now.-----------------------This is why Rubio must be denied the presidency indefinitely. The amnesty crowd will never stop until they get their way.

I think in 2014, we'll be working to elect the most conservative Republicans we can, but that in 2016, there will be a strong challenge from one or more third-party candidates for the presidency. I think people are going to start breaking the mold of the stupid, dem-friendly primary process we have, with the stupid "debates" moderated by libs. Some strong people are going to just not participate and reach the voters in other ways. It's not too early to start taking a good look at the Libertarian, Conservative, and Constitutional parties to see if one of them has the infrastructure and platform to allow a third-party candidate to succeed or if it would take a new, grass-roots party.

How cool would it be for the Libertarian, Conservative, and Constitutional parties and all the small tea party groups to unite behind a strong freedom candidate, say Ted Cruz or Rand Paul. Or both of them on one ticket. Could perhaps be done once the writing is on the wall as to which RINO the Repubs will be choosing in 2016.

Speaking only for myself, of course, I will NEVER support triple-nationality Ted Cruz for President. I like him, and I think he is a great Constitutionalist and a terrific conservative. But that's just it: there is NO way the natural-born clause was intended to encompass someone who was born to a Cuban father and American mother on Canadian soil, and if he permits his ego and ambition to run ahead of what he knows in his heart is his ineligilbility, he will be an even more vile betrayer of the Constitution than what we have in the WH today.

It might be cool, and fun to think abut, but the history of third parties in this country in the last century or so is absolutely clear and consistent: all they do is elect Democrats. From Teddy Roosevelt through Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace, through George Wallace, and Ross Perot, the result was all the same. The only possible exception might be Ralph Nader in one or two of his runs.'

The solution is to capture the party, as Bary Goldwater and Ronald Reagan did, and on the other side, George McGovern. Then you can win, if not the first try, then later.

My worry is that the party will also shatter on big government vs smaller government. So many are big government folks that it's like they're just Democrats with a different label. I wish there were a chance to make a sensible party, but I suspect I will still have to vote for a coalition that supports a whole lot of things I don't in order to get the few things that are top priority for me.